Bourdieu’s habitus and field: implications on the practice and theory

of critical action learning

This paper considers the logic of practice of the French sociologist Pierre

Bourdieu in relation to critical action learning: in particular habitus which is co-

created with field and the interplay among the two in the form of misrecognition

and risk. We draw on interviews with participants who have experienced action

learning as part of an NHS leadership programme. We argue that Bourdieu

provides helpful ways of understanding and explaining the complex processes of

social interactions which are centre stage in action learning – especially the

‘social friction’ through which action learners gain new insights and new prompts

to action in their workplace from learning set members. These insights can

support action learning practitioners keen to explore their own practice.

Keywords: critical action learning, Bourdieu, habitus, field, social friction

Introduction

The objective of this paper is to explore the interconnections and opportunities between the

practice of critical action learning and the theoretical contribution to practice by the French

sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu (b1930-d2002), whose work covered anthropology,

sociology and philosophy, was a scholar of major significance in contemporary sociology. His

interests included human action in all its incomplete, patchy and hesitant forms where people

pressed for time compete for stakes that they are invested in. In other words, he was interested

in the ‘real world’ where action, thought and engagement with others is a continual process that

shapes perceptions, identity and power; themes often rendered invisible by ‘the obvious’. These

are similarities we note with action learning in general and critical action learning more vividly.

1

Whereas Donovan (Donovan, 2014) explores the role of the action learning set facilitator, here

we also draw our attention to the participants themselves, particularly how we might reflexively

pay attention to the ‘destabilization’ of contradictory power relations (Vince, 2012) involving

set members, us as facilitators and the organization. We are drawing on a leadership

development programme of senior doctors leading to a post graduate certificate that was part of

a wider organizational development strategy by their employer, an NHS trust in England.

Our paper provides a body of thought that has yet to be comprehensively explored in critical

action learning literature that might help facilitators to pay attention to the shifting nature of

relations as participants embark on a process of unsettlement. Drawing on Bourdieusian

concepts we introduce the notion of social friction to explain and communicate the action

learning processes in the minds and bodies of participants. This includes how we become aware

of power relations that we are immersed in yet unavailable to notice and the heuristic processes

of science, politics and intuition by which we begin to notice and learn.

An orientation – power, politics and critical action learning

Action learning is the development of people through activity, usually a task that is important to

the participant in an organizational setting. It is this that provides a grounded context from

which the participant can learn whilst doing; Reg Revans, who developed the practice of action

learning, made the point that there can be no learning without action, and no action without

learning (Revans, 1998). It is therefore an ongoing activity of exploration combining given or

accepted knowledge with contextual learning. It is a process whereby the individual brings a

problem to an action learning set comprising of five or six participants which is usually

facilitated (Pedler, 1991) along with established ground rules that includes confidentiality.

Although when described it might seem an innocuous process it can have powerful effects

(Vince, 2001), both for the individual and the people that the participant works with. It can often

be the first step along the path of being more reflexive and understanding of the political and

social context in which they are embroiled (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999).

2

Since Revans developed the practice of action learning it has been taken up in a number of

different ways (Kozubska & Mackenzie, 2012), for example with an emphasis on reflection,

return on investment and personal and behavioural issues, with some bearing little resemblance

to the original concept (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999).

To provide an orientation of our approach in this paper we draw on Gilbert Ryle (Ryle, 1949) an

English philosopher of the 1950s of the ordinary language school. Ryle came up with the notion

of category mistake whereby the thing of theory is mistaken for the activity of practice; a habit

of rational people when they find themselves in unusual circumstances. The point being that one

cannot learn by following rules, but learning is shaped and formed by practice too; theory has its

agency in practice but this has to be done with humility. We therefore think in terms of

movement of thought rather than static concepts to be applied. Action learning is not a set of

rules and theory, it is a process of learning that comes to affect the individuals of the learning

set, the organizations but also the facilitators as a reflexive practice - as we will illustrate. We

are pointing to a reflexive process of forming and being formed (Cunliffe, 2009; Warwick &

Board, 2013) by the patterns of power relations we are all part of, action learning facilitators

included. It is for these reasons that we are drawn to the notion of critical action learning (CAL)

that seeks to make explicit these relationships as an opportunity for learning (Coghlan, Rigg, &

Trehan, 2012; Rigg & Trehan, 2004; Trehan, 2011; Vince, 2008). Although action learning has

its ‘source’ with Reg Revans, the ‘tributary’ of more critical stance can be located in the work

of Hugh Willmott (Anderson & Thorpe, 2004; Trehan, 2011; Vince, 2004, 2008) who expressed

concern that conventional action learning is unlikely to develop a critical perspective that might

serve to counter the unquestioning positivist traditions in management education ( Trehan &

Pedler, 2009). It is here that Schön’s reflective practice (Schön, 1991) and Critical Social

Theory (feminism, post-structuralism, Marxism etc) can serve as prompts to enable greater

critical engagement. Some characteristics of CAL according to Vince (Vince, 2008) include

how learning is affected by power relations and complex emotions of what it is to be a person in

an organization, which may be conscious or unconscious to the individual; processes that are

3

contradictory, confusing and ongoing. It is this relationship between participation and

deliberation in a social context that has the opportunity to enable the development of people to

work with the micro-politics of tasks and their organization ( Trehan & Pedler, 2009). All of

this requires a more active form of facilitation to make these relations available for discussion

( Trehan, 2011). The question we are drawn to is how can we notice and discuss these dynamics

in ways that enhance action learning practice and the participants’ learning?

Bourdieu’s ideas are increasingly applied in organizational analysis (Tomlinson, O’Reilly, &

Wallace, 2013) to explore resources, power and control particularly in multi-layered

organizations. These are processes that can be complex, paradoxical (Stacey, 2006, p241-242),

hard to notice and once noticed hard to fathom. We foreground two Bourdieusian concepts

which are part of his logic of practice, namely habitus and field. As we come to explain, it is in

the interaction between habitus and field, enabled by processes of action learning, that forms a

social friction that enables a noticing and learning to occur. We are drawing attention to an

important pre-condition to learning – the realisation that there is something to be learned. Or,

making the obvious obvious.

It was Bourdieu’s claim that social reality exists twice – in the field, namely the environment

and people around us and habitus, the reality in our minds and bodies (Bourdieu; Wacquant,

1992, p127). In Outline of Theory of Practice, Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1977) explains that habitus

is: ‘understood as a system of lasting transposable dispositions which, integrating past

experiences, functions at every moment as a matrix of perceptions, appreciations, and action1

and makes possible the achievement of infinitively diversified tasks’ (p78). Therefore Habitus

is a generative process of habit and repetition, but not one that implies an automatic reflex.

Instead it is a condition of practice that short cuts the numerous options available to the novice

to a narrower range of reasonable contextual possibilities. Later he stresses in The Logic of

1 Bourdieu’s own emphasis

4

Practice (Bourdieu, 1990) that habitus is: ‘embodied history, internalised as second nature and

so forgotten to history – it is an active presence of the whole of which it is the product’ (p56).

Therefore, as we increasingly become expert we lose the ability to notice the myriad of less

plausible possibilities that were once available to us and to consciously work through if we are

not to blunder. But as we come to explain, this expertise comes at a cost, that of not being able

to move into situations and power relations without implications for ourselves and the patterns

of relations we are part of.

Habitus is dependent upon externalities - the field, that Bourdieu defines as: ‘… a space of

relations which is just as real as a geographical space, in which movements have to be paid for

by labour, by effort and especially by time’ (Bourdieu, 1991, p100). Each player whose

relations constitute the field of a particular practice has their own internalised expression of the

shared habitus. This gives everyone in the field an individualised sense of their next step,

sensible or not, that needs to be reacted to by others. The field is therefore a complex dynamic

affected by power, reputation, tradition, gestures and so on. The processes of field and habitus

are not time bound; for example, an issue regarding care provision and resources raised in a

NHS board meeting does not end as the meeting closes, it continues in hospital corridor

conversations, during a consultant’s engagement with other members of staff, during

appointments with patients and families and in reviewing care plans and pathways. Therefore, in

a well-established practice habitus and field make a matching pair in the minds and bodies of

the participants.

In teams and organizations people do what seems natural to them, the range of possibilities is

narrow only to be glimpsed when a new team member asks: ‘but why do we …?’ We now draw

the notion of habitus and field to that of action learning. The crux is how the match between

habitus and field in the bodies and minds of participants can be ‘teased apart’ so that what is

second nature becomes less so and available for discussion and reflection.

5

To the extent that each member of an action learning set comes from a different practice-world,

not just one outsider is present in the set, but several. The questions, steps, attitudes and elisions

ingrained in each member’s habitus may lose their obviousness when followed up or challenged

by other set members. If this happens, a space is opened between habitus and field which

attracts possible new actions. In getting the individual to take action that goes beyond the

unnoticed rules of the field it causes ripples through those relationships affecting power, how

people see themselves and how they relate to each other. By ripples we mean implications for

power relations and noticing beyond the set and affects other organizational members.

This comes with risk, with benefits and harms. Marsick and O’Neil describe the relationship

between risk and process as:

… people should not enter into Action Learning lightly. In comparison to other action

technologies, Action Learning might be looked upon as relatively mild and

unprovocative, yet our experience is that people can experience it as powerful and even

frightening. We conclude that it is often the first step for participants in a journey

toward greater self-insight, greater capacity to learn from experience, and greater

awareness of the political and cultural dimensions of organizational change (Marsick &

O’Neil, 1999).

Affecting the dynamic between field and habitus risks what Bourdieu termed symbolic capital,

a concept closely linked with habitus. It is the activity of doing things differently that creates the

social noticing amongst the field; the complex dynamic of conversations, thoughts and actions.

This risk is hard to estimate other than to recognise that expertise of the field is required, along

with the problems it brings in terms of the ability to notice; in short, we are caught in a trap. It is

here that Bourdieu introduces the notion of misrecognition, that perception is always bound

with and to misperception; of actions taken up in ways not intended, imagined or considered. In

the confines of confidentiality and the supportive but challenging conditions of the learning set

6

these consequences are more controllable, but less so when actions are taken into the wider

organization.

In a study of leadership development in the UK public sector, Tomlinson and others (Tomlinson

et al., 2013) use selected Bourdieusian concepts to explore how centrally initiated development

programmes serve to perpetuate political elite domination through symbolic violence, this being

achieved through processes of tacit misrecognition between policy elites and those in frontline

leadership roles by persuading the latter that their agendas are the same. In consenting to this,

frontline leaders perceive it enhances their own standing in the organization. Principally this is:

‘through the acquisition of additional forms of capital and also facilitating their embodied

dispositions as leaders’(p82). And in doing so serve to: ‘collude in affirming and legitimating

the reproductive power of those who dominate them’(p82). We see people who are caught up in

the process of the game that they are invested in and as a result reinforce dominant power

relations.

Here we are drawing attention to misrecognition, risk and the realisation of power relationships

and how it acts as a social friction that occurs at a local level between leaders who are expert in

their own area (their habitus) and other fields within their organization. For example:

The clinical leader who is an expert in their own speciality and has direct management

control over their own small team whose interactions between each other have become

second nature. Here the power relations may be established, unchallenged and

unnoticed, and;

The wider teams and groups that the clinical leader needs to interact with in order to

influence and persuade so as to bring about service improvement. However, here their

ways of working are not second nature, they may be baffling or confusing. In stumbling

into new figurations of power they become available for discussion both with the

clinical leader and those teams.

7

In summary, the destabilisation of the matching pair of habitus and field in the minds and

bodies of individuals creates an ability to notice and discuss the figurations of power one is part

of. We term this social friction. And in doing so we recognise the attendant issue of risk that

requires reflexive negotiation in relation to activities in the learning set and the organization, a

dynamic that the facilitator is also part of.

Context

The wider stage

The nature of the NHS has changed considerably since its inception in 1948. To give a sense of

the scale of events over the years here are some of the milestones that have come to affect the

role of the clinical leader, particularly those in this study coming to a leadership development

programme many years after their initial clinical training.

The Griffiths Report in the 1980s ushered in the role of the professional manager and lessons

from the private sector affecting the status and nature of the clinical leader (Baker & Denis,

2011). The Nicholson Challenge of 2006 set the case for £20bn worth of savings to be achieved

by 2012 (Nicholson, 2008); a task yet to be completed, the impact of which is acutely being felt

today. There was the shock of the Mid Staffordshire NHS setting the case where at least 400

people prematurely lost their lives due to poor care (Francis, 2013). In addition, there are further

contradictory pressures of an ageing and more demanding population, financial constraints and

advancing medical technology. Finally, there are political reforms such as the Health and Social

Care Act of 2012 that ushered in the most significant reforms since its inception which

dismantled many of the NHS structures (King’s Fund, 2016).

These challenges increasingly require an approach to leadership that extends beyond defined

organizational boundaries; they are complex, political and challenging where expertise and

8

power is not wholly in their gift (Welbourn, Warwick, Carnall, & Fathers, 2012) all of which

undermine the confidence that was once the comfortable realm of the senior doctor.

The local context of this study

The leadership programme we discuss here took place in an NHS Trust comprising of two acute

care hospitals in England. Seen as successful by regulators it was formed several years

previously by the merger of two smaller trusts. The Chief Executive was keen to develop the

Trust moving towards a shared sense of purpose.

The Trust and the University developed a leadership development programme comprising of the

following elements: breakfast session with the Chief Executive or executive team member to

talk through current issues of the day; a morning of exploring a topic such as strategy, HR and

finance with the afternoon dedicated to participants’ practice with action learning. The

conversations in the action learning sets were influenced by external factors and often the most

evident were the topics raised by the chief executive at the breakfast session and informal

conversations. Even in how we designed the programme with the Trust’s senior team, issues of

power were evident including the choice by the Chief Executive to speak openly about her

concerns. There were ten sessions over the course of a year with successful completion leading

to a Post Graduate Certificate in Leadership and Management. There were four cohorts of

approximately 20 people comprising of senior nurses, doctors and managers, the first being in

2013 and the last in 2015. Participants in the programmes were at or near director level; those

that were the subject of this study were senior medical consultants.

Methodology

Here we paint a woven picture between a conventional research project with semi-structured

interviews and how we (J and R) came to reflexively interpret them as participants in the

research process and as learning set facilitators. In doing so we draw on a reflexive

9

methodology (Warwick & Board, 2012) from which the interview notes act as reflexive

prompts. It is worth noting issues of power between J and R as they come to make sense of the

interview transcripts, their own experience as facilitators on the programme and as researchers

with their own professional identities. Here we are illustrating our own social friction between

habitus and field. We conclude this section with commentary on the implications that attention

to this process has on validity.

Ethics

Full ethical approval was gained from the university ethics committee. Prior to any

involvement, participants were forwarded an information sheet and consent form for signature.

We as authors are ‘insider researchers’ being facilitators of action learning, and recognise an

additional ‘ethics of care’ in addition to the usual considerations (Costley & Gibbs, 2006). We

appreciate the delicate balance between exploiting generalised knowledge from the project for

all parties, for example, strategic leaders, whilst protecting individual relationships and roles

within organizations.

Interviews

The first cohort of twenty individuals were approached to be interviewed to explore the

phenomenon of action learning that they had experienced, of which nine agreed to take part.

Seven were males aged 40-60, two were females aged 30-50. Two participants had chosen

leadership as a career and 7 had established medical/clinical specialisms. A research assistant

conducted the semi-structured interviews that lasted approximately one hour and were carried

out at the participant’s workplace. The interviews were undertaken over one month, six months

after the programme was completed. This provided opportunity for post course euphoria to

dwindle and more formative learning experiences to reflect on their attitude and practice and

retold in their striking moments (Corlett, 2012) of action learning.

Reflexive Analysis

10

The interviews were transcribed and then analysed by three of us who worked on the

programme (J, R and A). A number of themes became apparent to us around the areas of

resilience and reflexivity (McCray, Palmer, & Warwick, 2015) whilst recognising that shifting

contextual and cultural complexity (Baynes, 1995) affected the setting of the research (Guba &

Lincoln, 2005). Despite our differing backgrounds the comments that we drew attention to

demonstrated a large degree of similarity.

To explore assumptions and biases we wrote and shared narratives of our formative

experiences, acting as a learning set of our own enquiry. This approach has for J a usefulness in

this specific piece of work. J is from a social science background, in part influenced by

socialisation in nursing practice: with some reliance on completion of tasks rather than engaging

in the process of getting to the task. The topic of this research has not created painful or

upsetting memories to be revisited: instead it has been enabling in that alternative approaches to

research and to the researcher have been offered and critiqued, moving away from a

behaviourist boundaried set of actions ‘I always work in this methodological way’ to that of

exploring dispositions in relation to habitus and the possibility for reflexivity.

R comes from a microbiology background, although having since spent over twenty years in

NHS management and consultancy, he still draws heavily on biological metaphors to make

sense of organizational processes, albeit with a scepticism of the scientific method with its

separation between subject and object.

We now use the first-person to undertake this reflexive exploration. We (J and R) were heavily

involved in the action learning set project and appreciate that we do not come to this research

anew. To illustrate our point, we present J and R’s reflections with each other as they were

involved in the action learning programme. For example, I (R) reflected on reading the

transcripts for the first time when I remembered ‘hearing’ their voices and relating their

reflections to my own having worked with many of them and was prompted to note:

11

In the learning set one participant had become frustrated that they could not implement

a medical procedure that their training had taught them would be safer, better and would

cost less. Despite these advantages the set member was presented with one

organizational objection after another. I felt frustrated too. It was in the set I

remembered and described an art installation by Yoko Ono (Ono, 1971) I had just seen

at the Guggenheim, Bilbao that was a glass maze. It was this that I kept coming back to:

of me walking into those glass walls.

It was an unsettling and radically reflexive process (Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2008; Pollner,

1991). We took seriously the connection between the participants’ and our experience and what

was the 'imaginative prompt' that enabled this. The answer developed over several

conversations in our set meetings, discussions with facilitators, a conference paper (Warwick,

McCray, & Board, 2016), and various e-mails; all of which enabled further noticing and

describing. Clearly we could have been beguiled into confirmation bias, something we kept in

mind as we read and interpreted the scripts and reflected on experience.

In the data analysis and reflecting on R’s voice and relating his to my own, I (J) found Board’s

model (figure 1) which follows later and which connects science, politics and intuition as being

useful as I recalled my response to R’s use of the glass wall. Firstly, I challenged R – ‘where did

the glass wall come from? I can’t see it in the transcripts …’: I was drawing on science and

evidence from my training in the academy and our very similar thematic analysis to seek

evidence in the data audit trail. Secondly I asked myself why was I uneasy at the message such

‘methodological leaps’-might convey? Here the use of methodological leaps refers to my

judgement of the process, made by a movement away from specific set criteria to assess

excellence in qualitative research (Tracey, 2010) which was unsettling. This caused a personal

‘”unsettling”, i.e., an insecurity regarding the basic assumptions, discourse and practices used in

describing reality’(Pollner, 1991, p370); from my position there were standards to adhere to in

12

the research process that created further reflection (Czarniawska, 2016). Part of me wanted to

discount R’s position and override it prioritising my own values and knowledge; an issue of

power affecting our research and action learning practice. Despite these feelings I was curious. I

was soon searching through my own ALS notes in support of other examples of Board’s model

which I had recalled (intuition) from the participants’ dialogue and wanted to re-read before

speaking to R about the process. In moving away from my reliance on one aspect of my

scientific training and seeking other ways of ‘seeing’ data I was developing new knowledge for

use in my research practice. And Cook and Brown (Cook & Brown, 1999) came to mind as they

write that by seeing knowledge as something that is gained by interaction in the social world

and in engaging with others we are more open to innovation in organizations. As Checkland and

Howell (Checkland & Holwell, 1998) point out this paying attention to the social heuristic

process of researchers is important when claiming validity, particularly the importance of a

‘declared epistemology’ (p16) that weaves together: methods; research findings; and, the way

that the endeavour was envisaged.

Findings from the interviews

In the following section we hear the participants’ voices. Our methodology indicated three

interconnected themes emerging from the interviews and our experience as facilitators.

Prompted by action, reaction and reflection of the action learning process these were:

Walking into glass walls; to describe how participants became aware of their own

assumptions in their interactions with others.

What participants had noticed about their practice and how this was now developing

over the course of their programme and beyond.

The process they had experienced; to describe what they had noticed about their

thoughts and practices throughout the process.

Cluster A: Of walking into glass walls (or, making the obvious obvious)

13

Here we use the metaphor of the glass wall to illustrate the increasing awareness of patterns of

interpersonal relationships that previously went unnoticed. From participant 1 there is a vivid

sense in how differently people sense the same workplace and express their perspective.

Participant 1

… the … reason it’s been very positive is because I think there are five extremely

different characters there, no two of us are similar at all. Some have overlapping traits

but they really are five very, very different people (comment 1.1).

And I have thought, ‘blimey did you… did I hear that right… did you really say that…

did it mean to come out quite like that?’ And sometimes you want to applaud them for

doing so (comment 1.2).

We also hear how unsettled participant 2 is by the experience, identifying themselves as an

introvert and who then has a growing awareness of what they have not been addressing.

Participant 2

I think I’m quite private, probably slightly introverted and I find the approach very

intrusive and a bit unsettling. … I suppose it tells me things about myself which I know

which I think I suppress (sic)… (2.1).

There was a realization from participant 3 of how different people were despite the fact that

they had been working with each other for many years in some instances.

Participant 3

… I suddenly appreciated how different people process different information. And that

to me was the most powerful thing I’d have learned … (3.1).

And finally participant 4 who noticed the value of others’ perspectives in addition to their own.

Participant 4

… I started by saying, ‘when in my experience it would be better to…’. But actually

everybody, everybody brought related facets to the proposal for resolution that has

been taken up and as a result of further discussions with the individual concerned… has

changed [me] very positively (4.1).

14

Here participants demonstrate a growing awareness of power relations since they engaged with

action learning, we hear the social friction that has occurred between their habitus and field. We

also note their unsettlement and risk in the process of learning about themselves and those

around them.

Cluster B: Of what participants’ are noticing of practice

We notice participants voicing doubt in their practice and how talking about this has helped. We

hear the power of listening and a realisation of the power and influence they have. There is an

increased sensitivity towards the dynamics that they are part of. There is also support from

others and confidence that this has enabled, both for themselves, but also in one case a

realisation that others were grappling with a lack of confidence too. From participant 4 we hear

greater acceptance of difference, others perspective, an increased ability to listen and an

awareness of their own power and that of others.

Participant 4

Helping? I think it’s opening my eyes, sorry it is opening my eyes to areas that I

previously wouldn’t have been nearly so broadminded about. And I think I get, because

I’m fairly… what’s the word… I’m a bit adventurous, but I also crave success, and I am

a fairly driven person. … (4.2).

And what I have learnt… is that one of the best ways to learn is to be really an avid

listener and to let everything soak in, and then to process it by feeding back and

summarising and conceptualising the intelligence that my peers have as well as my

own. … (comment 4.3).

I’ve got to remember that I’ve got a lot of power in this organization and people do

listen to what I say, so I need to use that wisely, and I need to use it carefully and I need

to use it to always bring the best out of people. Not to slip back at any stage again into

the snidey snarky controlling… (4.4).

15

The issue of listening is a theme for participant 6 as well.

Participant 6

So I would say from a personal learning point of view the first thing would be the

importance of listening and hearing what you’re listening to. Give yourself a little bit of

time to digest and then you know, perhaps responding if it is appropriate. … (6.1).

In participant 2 we hear doubt and the impact of being able to talk about this.

Participant 2

… I would think ‘I really don’t want to be doing this’. But it’s nice during those

meetings when you get positive direct feedback from your peers, and if you express self-

doubt, particularly if you are expressing any self-doubt as to your ability to actually

sort of do something or your effectiveness [sic] (comment 2.2).

From participant 5 we get a different perspective of doubt, that of confidence and the support of

the group.

Participant 5

The other thing I think I get from it, is a huge amount of support of ‘what you are doing

is right; [you’ve] just got to keep going and don’t be too despondent’. … (5.1).

I think there’s been a huge impact; it has really strengthened us as a group and as

individuals and I feel very confident in the rest of my personal managerial career to

feel that I can always ask any of the four individuals to help (5.2).

Finally, participant 7 comments on their ability to reflect.

Participant 7

… I think I spend more time reflecting on things now, certainly writing emails, I was

spending more time considering what I would write (7.1).

16

In recognising the importance of listening and having greater personal insight on power the

issue of misrecognition is recognised. Here participants demonstrate a growing awareness of

their ability to reflect and notice and of becoming more broad minded of how others see their

world.

Cluster C: Of the process they had experienced

Of the action learning process the issue of confidentiality and ground rules are important to

allow people to speak. Being able to share emotional stories is enabled by a trusting and

confidential space as was the related issue of respect, these were the consistent themes from

participants 1, 4 and 6.

Participant 1

I think just that, I think it’s the security, it’s the security, the fact that you can go into a

room and say what you want to say (comment 1.3).

Participant 4

… People expose themselves to some extent emotionally and when they do that it’s a

very trusting environment, but it’s also incredibly important, it’s incredibly important

to respect that soul baring, and to be really restrained about it, [I] had to keep it to

myself, which I do, which I have done absolutely (4.5).

Participant 6

It was confidential and private and secure … The action learning set is different

because it’s kind of facilitated, it’s safe, it’s private … (6.2).

The interaction of concepts and practice

In this section we take the above themes and comments and use the work of Pierre Bourdieu to

offer some insights that might contribute to the practice of critical action learning. Whereas

current literature on critical action learning focuses on issues of power, emotion and the political

dynamics (Trehan & Rigg, 2007; Vince, 2004, 2008, 2012), here we explore the nature by

17

which these become available for discussion and how these come to affect practice. The

connected themes here being the teasing out of one’s habitus and field in the process of social

friction of: noticing one’s assumptions; how this comes to develop awareness of practice; and,

of action learning itself. This is a process that affects both participants and facilitators. In terms

of process therefore, first comes an awareness of these dynamics and then an engagement with

them. We hear a growing ability to discuss associated feelings of doubt and confidence. These

are long term reflexive learning processes whereby the actions participants agree to make in the

learning set come to affect those around them in the organization thus offering the opportunity

for reflective conversations in the set and organization.

For the action learning facilitator, the concept of social friction, to explore Bourdieu’s field,

habitus and misrecognition, is useful in explaining the work to be done by members of a newly

formed set. It can prompt conversation towards noticing power dynamics, emotional factors in

organizational life and how the actions and learning have implications for the individual and

those they work with. This being the case then the question becomes: how might these concepts

be usefully communicated to a broad range of people. We will now discuss a way of achieving

this with a conceptual idea that explains a heuristic process the participants might expect.

The notion of process is important in action learning and for Bourdieu’ theory. This issue,

discussed by R and D who had worked together on a number of other projects, is explored by

Board (Board, 2012, 2015) in relation to the practice of selecting people for senior roles in

organizations (headhunting). Here Board, searching for language which could open up some of

the possibilities for insight and action generated by Bourdieu’s thought without requiring

practitioners to assimilate a new vocabulary, has proposed a heuristic process of question-asking

between science, politics and intuition, see figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 HERE]

18

Although Board explores the practice of executive selection, it is applicable to other roles

whereby one is working with others in a political context that we see in this paper with doctors.

We will consider each of the three elements and return to explore the heuristic process of human

interaction in action learning.

Firstly, science; this refers to the urge to reason in an objective way, to quantify and to measure

and build rational argument. In our case it is a space that our doctors readily occupy with the

call for ‘evidence based medicine’ and values of reproducibility, generalizability and validity in

scientific truth. When it comes to politics we pay attention to the tussle for limited resources, of

people and money. We also refer to the battle for attention of those in power, the chief

executive, her team and others with influence. And as the participant struggles for attention

‘upwards’ they too are caught in a net where their attention is also being sought. It is a net of

power whereby each player is bound to each other to some greater or lesser extent, a point

brought to life by Participant 4 in saying: ‘I’ve got to remember that I’ve got a lot of power in

this organization and people do listen to what I say, so I need to use that wisely, ...’ (4.4).

Finally, that of intuition, all that seems obvious without being able to put one’s finger on it, of

expert judgement borne from years of experience. All three are present as a heuristic invitation

to notice and are recognised or challenged to greater or lesser extents. For example, we might

privilege knowledge presented as science but in doing so one notices or questions fewer issues

of politics and intuition. The dynamic, if unchecked, might bolster one’s attention on science

and in doing so become trapped leading to frustration. To use a metaphor, it becomes a glass

wall we are aware of only on impact but have little understanding of why we cannot progress.

In the action learning process questions are posed of the participant that challenges their

assumptions and makes them aware of areas such as politics and intuition that they may

otherwise not notice.

19

Issues of power, politics and emotional dynamics have been identified as important factors of

critical action learning and here we offer a way of understanding these processes both within the

action learning community and participants new to action learning.

Conclusion

We have used Pierre Bourdieu’s logic of practice to find a language that illuminates the

processes of critical action learning to facilitators and set members. Firstly, there is a noticing of

the dynamics one is immersed in but have become second nature, secondly, the heuristic

process that pays attention to science, politics and intuition.

Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and field along with the friction of misrecognition are helpful in

initiating a conversation of what delegates might be letting themselves in for in joining an action

learning programme. Science, politics and intuition, employed as a heuristic to stimulate on-

going noticing of neglected dimensions of discussion, provides possibilities for new sense-

making by action learners which captures part of Bourdieu’s logic of practice but is accessible

without his terminology.

Further opportunities

We only undertook one set of interviews. Work is now underway to interview the participants

again, a further twelve months later. We are looking to explore longer term impacts of action

learning on practice.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Regina Karousou who carried out the interviews and the

reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments.

20

References

Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on Reflexivity: Reflexive Textual

Practices in Organization and Management Theory. Journal of Management Studies,

45(3), 480–501. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00765.x

Anderson, L., & Thorpe, R. (2004). New perspectives on action learning: developing criticality.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(8), 657 – 668.

Baker, G. R., & Denis, J.-L. (2011). Medical leadership in health care systems: from

professional authority to organizational leadership. Public Money & Management, 31(5),

355–362. http://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.598349

Baynes, K. (1995). Democracy and the Rechtsstaat. In S. White (Ed.), The Cambridge

Companion to Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Board, D. (2012). Choosing Leaders and Choosing to Lead. Oxford: Gower Publishing Ltd.

Board, D. (2015). Removing the Triple Blindfold. Retrieved August 3, 2016, from

http://douglasboard.com/

Bourdieu, P; Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity

Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language of symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action Research : Its Nature and Validity. Systematic

Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 9–21.

Coghlan, D., Rigg, C., & Trehan, K. (2012). Action learning: critical accounts of practice.

Action Learning: Research and Practice, 9(1), 1–3.

http://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2012.656886

Cook, S., & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between

organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–

21

400. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.4.381

Corlett, S. (2012). Participant learning in and through research as reflexive dialogue: Being

“struck” and the effects of recall. Management Learning, 44(5), 453–469.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612453429

Costley, C., & Gibbs, P. (2006). Researching others : care as an ethic for practitioner

researchers. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 89–98.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500392375

Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). The Philosopher Leader: On Relationalism, Ethics and Reflexivity--A

Critical Perspective to Teaching Leadership. Management Learning, 40(1), 87–101.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507608099315

Czarniawska, B. (2016). Reflexivity versus rigor. Management Learning, 47(5), 1–5.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507616663436

Donovan, P. (2014). Leaders Behaving Badly: using power to generate undiscussables in Action

Learning sets. Action Learning: Research & Practice, 11(2), 179–197.

http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2014.908766

Francis, R. (2013). The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry - Chaired by

Robert Francis QC. Retrieved May 31, 2015, from

http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin

(Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

King’s Fund. (2016). The NHS after the Health and Social Care Act. Retrieved December 30,

2016, from https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/new-nhs

Kozubska, J., & Mackenzie, B. (2012). Differences and impacts through action learning. Action

Learning: Research and Practice, (July), 37–41.

Marsick, V. J., & O’Neil, J. (1999). The Many Faces of Action Learning. Management

Learning, 30(2), 159–176. http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507699302004

McCray, J., Palmer, A., & Warwick, R. (2015). The impact of an action learning programme on

Doctors in clinical leadership roles within a United Kingdom NHS health economy

22

(Developmental Paper). In British Academy of Management Conference, Portsmouth.

Nicholson, D. (2008). NHS Chief Executive’s annual report 2008/09. Retrieved from

http://www.healthcare-today.co.uk/doclibrary/documents/pdf/215_the_year_2008-09.pdf

Ono, Y. (1971). Telephone in maze. Retrieved December 29, 2016, from

https://theartstack.com/artist/yoko-ono/telephone-maze?

product_referrer_user_id=429602087

Pedler, M. (1991). Action Learning in Practice. (M. Pedler, Ed.) (Second). Oxford: Gower

Publishing Ltd.

Pollner, M. (1991). Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of Radical Reflexivity.

Americal Sociological Review, 56(3), 370–380.

Revans, R. (1998). ABC of Action Learning: Empowering Managers to Act and to Learn.

Lemos and Crane.

Rigg, C., & Trehan, K. (2004). Reflections on working with critical action learning. Action

Learning: Research and Practice, 1(2), 149–165.

http://doi.org/10.1080/1476733042000264128

Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Penguin.

Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Proactiioner - How professional Think in Action. Aldershot:

Ashgate.

Stacey, R. (2006). Learning as an Activity of Interdependent People. In R. MacIntosh, D.

MacLean, R. Stacey, & D. Griffin (Eds.), Complexity and Organization - Readings and

Conversations (pp. 237–246). London: Routledge.

Tomlinson, M., O’Reilly, D., & Wallace, M. (2013). Developing leaders as symbolic violence:

Reproducing public service leadership through the (misrecognized) development of

leaders’ capitals. Management Learning, 44(1), 81–97.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1350507612472151

Tracey, S. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

Trehan, C., & Rigg, C. (2007). Working with Experiential Learning : A Critical Perspective in

23

Practice. In M. Reynolds & R. Vince (Eds.), The handbook of experiential learning and

management education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trehan, K. (2011). Critical action learning. In M. Pedler (Ed.), Action learning in practice (4th

ed., pp. 162–171). Farnham: Gower Publishing Ltd.

Trehan, K., & Pedler, M. (2009). Animating critical action learning: process-based leadership

and management development. Action Learning: Research & Practice, 6(1), 35–49.

Vince, R. (2001). Power and emotion in organizational learning. Human Relations, 54(10),

1325–1351. http://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400105

Vince, R. (2004). Action learning and organizational learning: power, politics and emotion in

organizations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 63–78. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1476733042000187628?

scroll=top&needAccess=true

Vince, R. (2008). “Learning-in-action” and “learning inaction”: advancing the theory and

practice of critical action learning. Action Learning: Research & Practice, 5(2), 93–104.

Vince, R. (2012). The contradictions of impact: action learning and power in organizations.

Action Learning: Research & Practice, 9(2), 209–218.

Warwick, R., & Board, D. (2012). Reflexivity as methodology : an approach to the necessarily

political work of senior groups. Educational Action Research, 20(1), 37–41.

Warwick, R., & Board, D. (2013). The Social Development of Leadership and Knowledge: A

Reflexive Inquiry Into Research and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Warwick, R., McCray, J., & Board, D. (2016). Bourdieu’s logic of practice & action learning:

interconnections & opportunities. In BSA Bourdieu Study Group’s Inaugural Biennial

Conference.

Welbourn, D., Warwick, R., Carnall, C., & Fathers, D. (2012). Leadership of whole systems.

London: King’s Fund. Retrieved from

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/leadership-whole-systems-welbourn-warwick-

carnall-fathers-leadership-review2012-paper.pdf

24

Figure 1: The heuristic action learning process

End.

25